On 08/06/2014 12:08 AM, Kees Cook wrote:

On Fri, Jul 25, 2014 at 2:37 AM, AKASHI Takahiro
[off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

I found a bug in my current patch (v5). When 32-bit tracer skips a system call,
we should not update syscallno from x8 since syscallno is re-written directly
via ptrace(PTRACE_SET_SYSCALL).

Ah, yes. Will aarch64 have a PTRACE_SET_SYSCALL option, or is this
strictly a 32-bit vs 64-bit issue?

As discussed in a few weeks ago, aarch64 won't support PTRACE_SET_SYSCALL.

quoted

I'm sure that my next version should work with 32/64-bit tracers on 64-bit
kernel.

Do you have a git tree uploaded anywhere? I'd love to follow this more
closely. When do you expect a v6?

I'd like to submit v6 as soon as possible, but
(1) how we should handle syscall(-1) is annoying me.
     Without ptracer, we will normally return -ENOSYS but, for example,
     what if some seccomp filter is installed and it does allow (or doesn't
     have any rule against) '-1' syscall? Since the kernel doesn't know tracer's
     intention, we should just let syscall(-1) return a bogus value.
     Thus we will see inconsistent results of syscall(-1).

(2) I'm investigating some failures in Kees' test suite.
   * 'TRACE.handler' case on compat task:
     Now I found a bug in arm64's compat_siginfo_t and fixed it.
   * 'TSYNC.two_siblings_*' cases on 32/64-bit task:
     I rebased my patch on pre-v3.17-rc1, but those cases still fail.
     I have no clues at this moment.

So please be patient for a while.

-Takahiro AKASHI

Thanks!

-Kees